Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO262.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 05:03:25
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #262
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 30 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
         Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
                      Clinton and Space Funding
              Controversy over V-2 anniversary (3 msgs)
                        Lunar landing in 2002
                 Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
 Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
     Redefining failure, space camps, & other changes of subject
                   Space and Presidential Politics
            Space platforms (political, not physical : -)
         Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
                      What was the Nova booster?
      Who pays for SEI studies? (was Re: Lunar landing in 2002)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 16:56:16 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>as for the sounding rocket companies.  pay them to run the launches.
>>then they get the profits from launch...
>
>What about the ones who are neither manned nor equipped to handle Pershings?
>Sounding rockets are not like jellybeans, where a different flavor just
>means a different color.  While they're all broadly similar, details matter
>a lot, and not every company is going to be happy if you dump a bunch of
>free Pershings on its doorstep.  For that matter, how do you decide which
>companies get them and how many?
>
>The way to handle this is to think capitalist, not socialist.  Sell the
>Pershings at a competitive market price for sounding rockets of that size.
>Use the revenues to fund a one-time-only launch-grant program for the
>experimenters:  show your payload ready for launch, get a voucher good
>for $XXX toward one launch, first come first served, until the money from
>the Pershings runs out.  Same net result, but without the destructive
>side effects on the industry.
>--


What i was thinking was this.  Every 6 months  auction a bunch of pershings.
best price wins the launchers,  bidding preference given to  universities
and R&D labs and small companies with flight plans.

meanwhile  qualify the sounding comapnies to handle these launches, and train
them on how they are prepped...  part of the qualifications is they commit
to manage launches at published rates.

then accept bids for the pershings contingent on launch ops being done
by the qualified companies at bid rates

now my understanding is that pershings are solids, mil designed so they dont
need much to handle.  i mean a TEL cant be that complex, and besides
the US ARmy has a bunch they are selling off cheap.  no missile no
need for TELs (Transporter, launchers, erectors)....


the way i see it, everyone wins.  labs, universities and business get
cheap launches.   the sounding companies get customers for little cost.
the US govt gets best price on otherwise scrap metal.

i mean this is all moot anyway now,  but next time around when we start
scrapping strategic missiles, it'll make a good model.a

it's not socialism to have a social policy.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 13:13:31 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <j8#[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Voodoo economics Nick. Most US military R&D is spent in the private
>>sector paying private companies acting as private contractors to
>>the military.
>
>Might I suggest a short course in economics? Consider any money spent
>on military hardware to be dumped down the drain. Or perhaps you think
>that the present recession is caused by companies refusing to use all
>of that 'good' military expertise to capture the world's market?

Nonsense. If you import military tech and don't need the weapons,
then you've poured your nation's money down the sewer. But if you
manufacture domestically, as we do, then the money stays in the
domestic economy building a technical infrastructure and expertise,
and spurring growth in the civilian economy as the dollars go through
their multiplier. Military and aerospace dollars have a particularly
high multiplier, 7x, because the jobs pay well and allow the workers
more discresionary income that can be spent in the civilian economy.
Direct public assistance funds have a much smaller multiplier, around
2x, because the recipients don't have large discressionary funds for
major capital purchases, they mostly pay rent and buy food. The same
applied to Apollo or other space programs. No money went into space,
it stayed right here in the pockets of the Americans who designed and
built the hardware and the pockets of the people from which they bought
consumer goods. The only problem occurs when you spend money you don't
have year after year. That places a mortgage on the future that ultimately
comes due.

Military spending has produced an enviable technical expertise, but it
has not produced expertise in cost effective *management* in a competitive
environment. Sheltered by government contracts, most aerospace firms have
grown soft and lazy about managing and marketing their products to any
customer beyond a government. Managers are adept at manipulating *political*
customers, not cash customers. This is the real secret of Japanese success,
they've mastered the *consumer* market. Their technical expertise is not
better than ours, in fact much of what they sell us is based on US patents.
But their marketing and production skills are honed much finer than those
of our military industrial complex.

The present recession has the same cause the world over. People,
businesses, and governments overextended themselves and ran up
massive debt loads, mortgaging their futures. Particularly when
the speculative bubble in real estate burst, private debt had
inadequate collateral and borrowing was sharply curtailed. This
effectively reduces the money supply since leveraged debt is extra
money in the economy. Economic growth has declined as people concentrate
on paying down their accumulated debt, further decreasing the available
money supply. This has a spiral effect as less purchases are made,
fewer products need be produced and fewer workers employed. As debt
comes under control, confidence builds, products are purchased reducing
inventories, and production ramps back up hiring new workers, and we
re-enter the upward spriral of growth again. In classical economic
textbooks it's called the *business cycle* and has been around as long
as capitalism. The government tampers with it at it's peril.

Government has been involved in a massive wealth transfer scam, pulling
wealth from the private sector to the public sector where it's unavailable
for capital formation. This enormous amount of money, nearly 3 trillion
dollars, is a mortgage on future generations. While consumers are succeeding
in getting their debt under control, and business is succeeding in getting
it's debt under control, the government continues to borrow and spend as
if there were no ill effects from this process. Government spending is
valuable in areas where private investors fear to tread, but government
debt can't continue to grow indefinitely. It too must be managed in a
sound fiscal way so that future generations will have capital left on
which to operate. Right now the Democrats are paying the interest on
one credit card by charging it on another. That's the road to bankruptcy
and ruin for individuals and nations. A rubber stamp in the White House
can only make matters worse.

>>Again wrong. The Japanese stock market crashed because of world
>>currency fluctuations, the worldwide recession, and the collapse of
>>a massive speculative boom.
>
>The same answer here. American companies will now have the biggest
>percentage of their talent released from military work. The U.S.
>government has been paying our best companies to _not_ compete with
>Japan. The japanese know that and are concerned that it is over.

Our "best" companies? I don't think so. Our *best* companies, the
ones that have been eating the Japanese's lunch, are companies like
Nucor Steel, Microsoft, Harley Davidson, Apple, lumbering old GE,
even Japanese railroads use components built by GE, and others who
haven't been busy building $800 toilet seats, $450 screwdrivers, and
coffee pots that can survive a nuclear bomber crash. Companies whose
primary business has been government contracts are the *worst* companies
to compete with the Japanese. They have no concept of how to do cost
effective production. If the Japanese are scared of them, they are much
bigger fools than I give them credit for being.

>The government has to _stop_ spending money. The government has no
>idea of _how_ to spend money in order to make money. They don't
>have the _concept_ of fiscal responsibility.

The government has to stop spending more money than it takes in. Agreed.
However, the government isn't *supposed* to spend money in order to make
money, the government isn't a for profit operation. The government is
supposed to spend money to do necessary things that private individuals
and businesses can't or won't do alone, like provide a national defense
and drive high risk, long return research. The Congress' of the last
50 years have shown little indication that they have *any* concept
of fiscal responsibility. They can't even manage their own checkbooks,
much less those of the nation. That *is* a major problem, but government
does have legtimate uses and we mustn't throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Congress must be reformed and the old tax and spenders
thrown out before we can get the House (and Senate) in order again.

>If Clinton gets in it will all be pretty much done for anyway. His
>tax policy coupled with his spend policy will bankrupt the U.S.A.
>in 5 years instead of the predicted 10 and space exploration can
>be carried out by what is left of Europe and Japan's industries.

No argument here. Clinton would be a rubber stamp for the half
baked plans of the Democrats in Congress. Bush has done a sorry
job of saying *no*, but Clinton wouldn't even try. A President
has wide latitude in the conduct of foreign affairs, but in
domestic and fiscal policy, about all he can do is act as a check
on the wilder impulses of Congress, where the purse strings are
controlled. Quayle may not know how to spell potato, but Bush
at least ocasionally knows how to spell veto. If he had a little
more backbone, he'd do it more often. If *we* had a little more
backbone, we'd throw those weasels on Capitol Hill out on their
sorry butts and put some fiscally responsible people in their
place.

Gary

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 16:44:36 GMT
From: Curtis Roelle <roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Remember a week or so ago, when somebody on this newsgroup reminded us
>that the first flight of a V-2 (A-4, if you prefer) into "space" had
>taken place fifty years ago, in October 1942?

>Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this
>event have become a matter of controversy.  A local FM station carries
>the BBC World Service, and they reported that the German government
>had withdrawn its support, or approval, or something, from a
>commemoration sponsored by private aerospace groups.  Ceremonies were
>supposed to take place at Peenemuende, the military base on the Baltic
>where the A-4 was developed.

>Has anybody heard more detail?  Has the story appeared in print?

There are threads re: this topic in soc.culture.german.  I believe the last
word was the ceremonies have in fact been canceled.

CWR

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 16:39:08 GMT
From: Alan Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
|> Remember a week or so ago, when somebody on this newsgroup reminded us
|> that the first flight of a V-2 (A-4, if you prefer) into "space" had
|> taken place fifty years ago, in October 1942?
|>
|> Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this
|> event have become a matter of controversy.  A local FM station carries
|> the BBC World Service, and they reported that the German government
|> had withdrawn its support, or approval, or something, from a
|> commemoration sponsored by private aerospace groups.  Ceremonies were
|> supposed to take place at Peenemuende, the military base on the Baltic
|> where the A-4 was developed.
|>
|> Has anybody heard more detail?  Has the story appeared in print?
|>
|> Apparently the fact that the A-4 was a nasty weapon that killed lots
|> of people overshadows the importance of the anniversary.

There is controversy over the celebrations. Some people in Germany wanted
to celebrate the anniversary because of its technological importance,
while others felt that it would be in bad taste.

The whole thing has been complicated by the unvieling in London, about
4 months ago, of a statue of 'Bomber' Harris, who ran Bomber Command
when it demolished Dresden. Many of the people in the UK who defended the
Harris statue are now upset about the Germans celebrating part of their
WWII history.

In late 1986 some disturbing documents about Peenemuende were the
subject of some TV documentaries in the UK, and possibly in Germany too,
I don't know. Films of the slave workers digging out the tunnels, being
hung in job lots from cranes etc., together with details of the senior
officers' military records (like SS Colonel von Braun), documentation
signed by von Braun requisitioning more slave workers as the last lot
had been expended, did much to make people feel that to celebrate the
technological achievements of Peenemuende is like celebrating the
medical accomplishments of Belsen.

There was a junior Minister in the German Government (Industry I think)
who voiced support for the celebrations last week, which put the issue
in the spotlight, but on Monday the German Government announced that he
hadn't cleared his statement with his boss, who repudiated it.

Basically, Bill is right. Just about the only thing people are not
concerning themselves with in this argument (if they are involved at all,
I'm certainly not) is the dawning of the Space Age, but so what? There are
still plenty of people alive today who had explosive headed V2 rockets
falling on them, in their London homes. Tell them that this was really
something to be cheerful about! Anyway, Goddard was at it long before.

   Usual disclaimers, Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls.

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 19:16:56 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this
>event have become a matter of controversy.  A local FM station carries
>the BBC World Service, and they reported that the German government
>had withdrawn its support, or approval, or something, from a
>commemoration sponsored by private aerospace groups.  Ceremonies were
>supposed to take place at Peenemuende, the military base on the Baltic
>where the A-4 was developed.
>
>Has anybody heard more detail?  Has the story appeared in print?
NPR also carried it (or is that the report you are referring to, since the
local NPR station in Dallas also carries BBC World Services at 14 hours,
Greenich).
>
>Apparently the fact that the A-4 was a nasty weapon that killed lots
>of people overshadows the importance of the anniversary.
>
>In this country, the Confederate Air Force is allowed to tell us what
>a great plane the B-17 was without visible interference...
Yeah, but remember, the V2 was an instrument of war, while the B-17 was...

Err, the V2 killed civilians as well as military targets, while the B-17 ...

Err, the V2 lost and the B-17 won.  Victors write history.

Maybe we should celebrate its first civil launch, I think that was in August,
1946?  WAC Corporal, if memory serves (it doesn't stretch back that far).
>
>
>Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | Here Lies Bill Higgins:
>Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | He Never Ever Learned
>Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | To Play Guitar So Well
>Internet:       [e-mail]  | But He Could Read and Write
>SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | Just Like Ringing A Bell
                                          It's Billy B Good tonight.
>
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |"Repay kindness from a stranger by kindness
[e-mail]          | to another stranger."
PADI DM-54909

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 92 15:23:27 GMT
From: Dani Eder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar landing in 2002
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Claus Tondering) writes:

>I don't read this group regularly, so this may be a FAQ. In that case
>please accept my apologies, but here goes...

>A friend of mine recently told me that there are definite plans to
>resume lunar flights around 2002 with the aim to establish a permanent
>base on the moon.

The organization I work for at Boeing is called "Planetary Surface
Systems", so I suppose I am as knowledgeable as anybody as to what
is going on in lunar bases.

NASA has maintained an office for the past several years at the
Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX dedicated to planning the
Lunar and Mars exploration programs.  The personnel in this office
have devised a number of programs over the past few years, and their
plans continue to evolve in the light of new ideas.  Generally, you
can describe the plans as containing a progression of missions.
The names and specific characteristics of the missions fluctuate, but
generally they run as follows:

1. Robotic Missions

This inlcudes a lunar orbiting spacecraft or two to provide high
resolution mapping, and characterization of the lunar geology
using spectrometers of various sorts.  Another objective is better
mapping of the lunar gravity field (it is somewhat lumpy).  These
types of information are generally agreed to be both scientifically
valuble, and useful for planning future manned missions.

The other category of robotic missions are those that land something
on the lunar surface.  The small landers (100 kg class) are going
under the name 'Artemis' currently.  Larger ones range up to
several tons in mass.  The stuff that would be landed includes a
range of science instruments, and prototypes of lunar processing
equipment, up to preparatory equipment for lunar landings.

2. Manned Missions

The definition of the manned missions is still not very good.  The
current concept is something called the 'First Lunar Outpost', which
would be the first manned return mission.  It would carry a crew
of 4 for 45 days, during which they would deploy a 1 meter class
telescope, do drilling of core samples, drive around and pick up more rock
samples, and run a pilot oxygen production plant.

The missions after this are open ended and poorly defined.

Most of the work on these plans has been done in-house by NASA people.
My company (and I assume other aerospace companies) maintain groups
doing parallel work on company funds.  This is speculative on our part,
in the hope that a real program will develop at some point.

For the past couple of years NASA has requested funding to start to
pay contractors to work on these projects.  The US Congress has seen
fit to deny these requests except at the most minimal levels
($1 million per year).  Boeing and one other company were awarded
contraacts to begin design of the lunar observer mentioned above,
but the contract is un-funded at present because NASA has no funds
they are allowed to use for this purpose.

So, to summarize the answer to your question, there are plans
to return to the Moon.  I would not characterize them as 'definite',
and placing a date on such things in the current budget environment
would be very risky.

Dani Eder

--
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/[phone](w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:35:46 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Imagine instead of a Mariner Mark II class mission you have a series of
>missions starting with a relay satellite and following up with separate
>craft with imagine, IR, UV and fields and particle instruments. And with
>the quick turn around you can send updated instruments based on knowledge
>gained by early instruments.


>You can afford to try more risky techniques
>like ion propulsion and aerobraking. How about a Titan probe that uses
>aerobraking in Titan's atmosphere instead of slowing down with a rocket,
>for instance.

Are they planning to use retrtrockets for the Huygens probe? If so,
_why_? The Galileo probe makes a direct entry into Jupiter and I'd
think the entry velocities for Huygens would be lower...

>Could someone with a better idea of the costs involved come up with a
>quick estimate of the previous two approaches for a similar set
>of overall goals.

The proposed Pluto mission will spend no more than $400 million on two
spacecraft. That would suggest a ~$200 - $250 cost for a single instrument
sapcecraft. I suspect the Galileo mission (which I have a detailed
instrument breakdown for) would require about seven or eight such
spacecraft to meet the same goals. That would suggest $1.5-2 billion
dollars to accoplish a Mariner Mark II mission using several small
spacecraft. I don't recall the current Cassini/Huygens budget, but
I don't think this is a huge savings.

However, small spacecraft offer two additional advantages: They permit
more frequent missions (there are many diagvantages to 20-year desing
to use missions) and they are much less vunerable to a failure: With
A Mariner Mark II, a single major failure could ruin the entire mission
(witness Galileo's antenna), whereas such a failure on a series of
small crafts would only jeperdize one of many parts of the mission.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:56:33 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Wingo posted the following:

> No we are not still mining huge amounts of coal. We are mining less
> coal today than in the seventies.

This is quite wrong.  From the 1992 World Almanac:

    Year    US Coal Production (million metric tons)
    -----------------------------------------------
    1970        612.7
    1975        654.6
    1977        697.2
    1979        781.1
    ...
    1988        950.3
    1989        980.7
    1990           1035.9

Production is up 32% from 1979 (the top year for US coal production in
the 70s) to 1990.  US production grew about 2.6% per year.
Consumption by US electric utilities grew 46% over that period, or
about 3.5% per year, to 771.5 MMT in 1990.

The only grade of coal that we mine less of now than in the 70s is
anthracite, which accounts for about 0.3% of US coal production.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 13:35:39 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Redefining failure, space camps, & other changes of subject
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>The stated goal being a flight every week, the actual result being less
>than a flight per month.  Of course, we're allowed to redefine that
>endlessly as well, just as we're allowed to decrease the functionality
>of the space station, increase its cost from the promised $8 billion
>to over $100 billion, and use accounting gimmickry and clever arguments
>to say, "hey, that's what we planned all along!"  I was there when
>the promise was made, so let's not dredge up the Boeing accounting -- SSF
>was sold as an $8 billion project, in disregard of what Boeing
>engineers actually projected as the costs, information that was
>not made available to me at the time. We were shamefully involved
>in promoting the wrong numbers, because we were operating by wishful
>thinking; we didn't bother to think critically and ask the right
>questions. Similar NASA/NSS figures on astronaut projects in the
>future should be con sidered against this history of deceit.

$100 billion for Fred is a bit higher than other sources claim, but
it's in the ballpark for *life cycle* costs of the station. That's
roughly $3.3 billion a year over 30 years, or roughly 1/5th of NASA's
yearly budget. NASA doesn't present life cycle cost figures to Congress
when it sells a program. It only shows the upfront hardware costs,
neglecting launch costs. Thus we currently are hearing about $200 million
science probes that don't include the $180 million launch cost or the
continuing DSN costs, data reduction and analysis costs, etc. Life cycle
costs of science probes such as Magellan and the Voyagers would be much
higher than their advertised program costs too. We've got to take a new
costing strategy when looking at new start programs so we'll have a better
idea of how they'll effect continuing budgets. Then we've got to do a much
harder job, we've got to estimate the value of the continuing *returns* made
available to us by the new capabilities. That's a slippery number to
pin down with research facilities since specific discoveries can't be
predicted well in advance of start of operations. The common wisdom says
that research facilites almost always pay off, though not necessarily
soon or in expected directions. They are precisely the kinds of risks
that government is designed to undertake. The projects with guaranteed
returns can safely be left to private enterprise.

Gary

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 18:43:14 GMT
From: Jim Mann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
> As has been said before, the sum total of everyone's special
> interests is the public interest, NOT what the political pundits
> claim is the public interest. For some on this news group space
> (read: the future) IS the defining issue. That is their right and
> perogative. Who gives a damn what the Washington Post says anyway?

The problem with this is that I've met some space enthusiasts
over the years who would vote for Adolf Hitler if they thought
he would support a strong space program.  Almost ANY issue has
to be put in perspective, and balanced off against others. A
candidates view of space explorations is ONE issue by which I
judge the candidate.  You can argue about whether it should be
one of the most important ones or one of the minor ones, but it
certainly should not be the ONLY one.

--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer   [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 17:32:35 GMT
From: "Charles J. Divine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Intersting.  Our society is now freer than at any time in our
>history.  Books that could not have been published 50 years ago
>are published.  People can say or do things in public that would
>have had them arrested in many places 100 years ago.  But, as usual,
>people look at the few places where we aren't as free as they'd
>like and bemoan the long lost days.  (To be fair, we have lost
>a few freedoms.  Like, 150 years ago, people would chew tobacco
>in public buildings and simply spit it on the walls or in the
>corners. They'd probably be arrested if they did that today.  Ah,
>for the long lost days of being able to spit chewing tobacco
>freely, before the Rebublicrats [sic] stopped us from doing so.)


Actually, the situation is more complex than this.   Yes, can we
now read books that were banned 50 years ago.  But similar books
were actually available 150 years ago.  Book banning, like many
other schemes to reduce pleasure (e.g., Prohibition, drug war, etc.),
got its start in the latter part of the 19th century.  Before then
people didn't much care what you read -- with the exception of works
of "blasphemy" in places like Boston.

Economically and technologically we seem more constrained than 50
years ago.  Government has been increasingly active in regulating
all manner of activities that were formerly ignored.

Your example of spitting chewing tobacco in public is clearly an
instance of sensible government action to deal with a significant
public health problem of a past era.

Now, would you care to defend the FBI described in Alien Ink?
That's a clear example of a 20th century government innovation
that has been nothing but a vile assault on a free society.

>
>--
>Jim Mann
>Stratus Computer   [e-mail]


--
Chuck Divine

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 19:39:50 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

>Actually it's a bit more complex than that. Prices have elasticity,
>ie, there are ranges over which there are somewhat linear changes.

[economics lecture cut for brevity :)]

>I am not implying that your statement is necessarily wrong. Just
>indicating that the situation could be a bit less straightforward.
>
>Just another friendly minilecture in economics....

My points are:

    A) Claiming there's a gazillion dollars worth of gold out there
       in the Asteroid El Dorido (AED) is bogus, because it won't be worth
       a gazillion on the open market, even assuming (har har) you can
       get one ounce of Space Gold delivered, processed, and delivered
       for the same amount of money as one ounce of Earth Gold.

    B) You won't be able to deliver one ounce of Space Gold <= the price
        of Earth Gold, not for a long long time.

Delivery and initial factory start-up are, as the Greaseman puts it, "The
Squealer."

There's a lot of helium-3 on the moon too, but until someone comes up with an
undying need for it, it'll be there for a while.

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 17:06:42 GMT
From: "Peter J. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What was the Nova booster?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I just read in the October _Final Frontier_, in an article about
NLS (or whatever they're calling it this month), about how there
were plans during the Apollo program to construct a booster even
larger than the Saturn V, called the Nova.  This monster would
have had 8 F1s on the first stage and some plans called for a
nuclear engine-propelled third stage.

It's odd to me that I haven't heard of this before.  Questions:
what was the payload to LEO?  To the lunar surface?  (It apparently
figured in plans for a moon base.)  What type of nuclear engine was
proposed?  How far did this thing get on the drawing board?

BTW, the article just mentions Nova in passing and I've repeated
everything about it, so don't ask me for more.  I've said it before,
this is an excellent publication (my subscription is paid through
December 2002!).

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 92 18:35:42 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who pays for SEI studies? (was Re: Lunar landing in 2002)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dani Eder) writes:
> [e-mail] (Claus Tondering) writes:
>>A friend of mine recently told me that there are definite plans to
>>resume lunar flights around 2002 with the aim to establish a permanent
>>base on the moon.
>
> NASA has maintained an office for the past several years at the
> Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX dedicated to planning the
> Lunar and Mars exploration programs.  [...]
>
> Most of the work on these plans has been done in-house by NASA people.
> My company (and I assume other aerospace companies) maintain groups
> doing parallel work on company funds.  This is speculative on our part,
> in the hope that a real program will develop at some point.
>
> For the past couple of years NASA has requested funding to start to
> pay contractors to work on these projects.  The US Congress has seen
> fit to deny these requests except at the most minimal levels
> ($1 million per year).  Boeing and one other company were awarded
> contraacts to begin design of the lunar observer mentioned above,
> but the contract is un-funded at present because NASA has no funds

Dani, I have wondered how all this work gets paid for, since Congress
has voted essentially nothing for the Space Exploration Initiative.
You give part of the answer:  some of the work is company-funded.
But, judging from the papers and conferences I see, there are really
quite a lot of people working on SEI-type stuff.  How does NASA pay
for in-house work?  Is there a non-SEI source of funds for this?

I also feel that such companies as Eagle Engineering and SAIC seem to
do a lot of this work for their size.  Can it all be internally
funded, or is there a source of NASA money for it, or are they getting
contracts from Boeing, Martin Marrietta, etc.?

Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking         Bill Higgins
pictures, radio, television, bouncing radar       Fermilab
vibrations off the moon, rocket ships, and        [e-mail]
atom-splitting-- all in our time.  But nobody     [e-mail]
has yet been able to figure out a music           SPAN:  43011::HIGGINS
holder for a marching piccolo player.
                     --Meredith Willson, 1948

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 262
------------------------------